The enigma that is Kevin Pietersen

[Making_Splinters]

So, please apologise.

Seems fair to me.

Would it be taken as a sincere, heart-felt apology or merely a ploy to extend his test career, though?

Who know's but he can only do what is asked, although it seems he's reluctant to do that!

If his team mates suspect it's not sincere, it's hardly going to promote team harmony, then. In fact, it may make it even worse.

Well yes but then a private apology to his team mates and a truce should be an end to it. If some are still not happy after that then tough.

The way the ECB have handled the entire apology issue makes it difficult for any apology to be seen as sincere or meaningful.

[Kim]

No mobiles only during hours of play KJ

[shankycricket]

To me this is a joke -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricke ... d-Cup.html

This is what mothers say to their kids who have been fighting in the playground.

This is the money shot for me.... you can come back if you leave your dignity at the door and admit defeat??!!!??? This is insulting, if I would KP I would rightly tell them to shove their test team where the sun dont shine.Apologise for what exactly? For the offence caused by text messages the ECB cant verify the nature of.... the arrogance of such a demand makes my blood boil.

[Gingerfinch]

No mobiles only during hours of play KJ

I can only see KP and Strauss on the field of play, communicating by text from now on, kim

[D/L]

...As for contracts, I dont think gag orders are worth the paper they are written on, and the ECB disclosed and leaked discussions of a personal nature to the press, they are the last people to start pointing to mutual clauses in contract about what you should be saying to the press without authorisation

As employer, the ECB determines the contract conditions, assuming they are lawful, under which they will employ.

I’m assuming then it is being claimed that what is referred to as a “gag order”, more usually the invoking of a clause restraining public comment, would be held as being unlawful were it ever to be challenged in a court of law?

Really?

[D/L]

Let's put the KP issue to one side and look at the bigger picture for a change.

I ask a simple question - what is the Anti-Corruption Unit or whatever it is called doing - or not doing?

Regardless of the individuals, exchanging 'messages' between opposition players during matches is pretty obviously an avenue which can be exploited by those who wish to corrupt our wonderful game...

Good point, well made, KJ. I too thought that the use of mobiles by players was restricted for the very reasons you state.

[Dilbert]

No mobiles only during hours of play KJ

I can only see KP and Strauss on the field of play, communicating by text from now on, kim

Thats funny walrus, I can actually visualise how that'll work.

Strauss texting KP that he plans to declare in the next 30 mins, but KP is not reading his messages. We need some quick runs here but KP needs to check his messages !!!

So Strauss sends a message to the non striker Broad, who promptly pulls out his phone in front of KP and messages him to read "his greatly revered Captain Strauss's " messages and respond back

[shankycricket]

http://cricketnext.in.com/live/news/kp- ... 22-13.html

[sussexpob]

...As for contracts, I dont think gag orders are worth the paper they are written on, and the ECB disclosed and leaked discussions of a personal nature to the press, they are the last people to start pointing to mutual clauses in contract about what you should be saying to the press without authorisation

As employer, the ECB determines the contract conditions, assuming they are lawful, under which they will employ.

I’m assuming then it is being claimed that what is referred to as a “gag order”, more usually the invoking of a clause restraining public comment, would be held as being unlawful were it ever to be challenged in a court of law?

Really?

Such restraining clauses are against the principles of democracy and free speech, and as such are only worth their weight where conduct from the said party could be damaging by leaking potentially sensative information, such as team tactics or the contents of team meetings.... in this instance, only one party has done that, and it was the ECB funnily enough.

KP's youtube video saying he wished to play in all formats of the game was hardly damaging...in fact, if anything, he was going back on a measure that previously caused confrontation and was stating he wished to honour his contract.....

I cant see how you would have justification to block such a public measure.

[Arthur Crabtree]

The ECB is saying, according to the press I've seen, that:

1. Pietersen should confirm that these texts exist.

2. And he should apologise for them.

How can you make any sense out of that?

Or

Deny they exist.

Thtas the point. If he denies they exist, he doesnt have to apologise for them.

So why doesnt he?

But that isn't hard to understand. There could be many reasons. For me it would be because they had intruded into my personal, private space. Everyone feels the need to have a part of themselves that cannot be touched by others, be it employers, the police, the press. Or we might give access to it guardedly. With SA, the newspapers and the ECB exposing what he felt was personal and private, he doesn't feel the need to justify that part of himself to anyone. This will be very difficult for him to accept.

There could be a lot of other reasons. But it wouldn't necessarily be something you could do, just for show, without sincerity. This is a deeply personal issue.

[D/L]

The ECB is saying, according to the press I've seen, that:

1. Pietersen should confirm that these texts exist.

2. And he should apologise for them.

How can you make any sense out of that?

Or

Deny they exist.

Thtas the point. If he denies they exist, he doesnt have to apologise for them.

So why doesnt he?

But that isn't hard to understand. There could be many reasons. For me it would be because they had intruded into my personal, private space. Everyone feels the need to have a part of themselves that cannot be touched by others, be it employers, the police, the press. Or we might give access to it guardedly. With SA, the newspapers and the ECB exposing what he felt was personal and private, he doesn't feel the need to justify that part of himself to anyone. This will be very difficult for him to accept.

There could be a lot of other reasons. But it wouldn't necessarily be something you could do, just for show, without sincerity. This is a deeply personal issue.

Or perhaps, simply, he is being evasive.

[meninblue]

From one Poster who has more information about county cricket than me could not get well with those counties. Ego problems according to him.

There are always two sides to a coin. I read about this on the net, and my conclusion is that he never played for Hampshire as he had a busy intl schedule, and the Notts Captain threw his kit and trashed it, so he had differences there.

It is also a fact that he had issues with some English players. Who they are i don't know, so i cannot name them.

How is it a fact when you dont know what it is?

Also i have observed he has issues with CSA, Peter Moores, Andy, Strauss, ECB .

Again with CSA, he never had issues as he never played for SA. was never in contention.

He impressed members of Nasser Hussain's England side when playing for KwaZulu Natal in 1999; he took four top-order wickets and, despite batting at number nine, scored 61 not out from 57 balls, hitting four sixes.[38] Hussain then recommended that Pietersen secure a contract with an English county side.[39]

Despite the praise from the England side, Pietersen claimed he was dropped from the Natal first team. Pietersen felt that this was due to the country's racial quota system, in which provincial sides were required to have at least four non-white players.[4][40][41] Pietersen's view was that players should be judged on merit, and described it as "heartbreaking" when he was left out of the side, although he later reflected "it turned out it was the best thing that could have happened".[42] Pietersen has since firmly criticised the quota system,[43] which he feels forced him out of the country of his birth.

So according to you he never had issues even with Andy, Moores, ECB as well.

[D/L]

...As for contracts, I dont think gag orders are worth the paper they are written on, and the ECB disclosed and leaked discussions of a personal nature to the press, they are the last people to start pointing to mutual clauses in contract about what you should be saying to the press without authorisation

As employer, the ECB determines the contract conditions, assuming they are lawful, under which they will employ.

I’m assuming then it is being claimed that what is referred to as a “gag order”, more usually the invoking of a clause restraining public comment, would be held as being unlawful were it ever to be challenged in a court of law?

Really?

Such restraining clauses are against the principles of democracy and free speech, and as such are only worth their weight where conduct from the said party could be damaging by leaking potentially sensative information, such as team tactics or the contents of team meetings.... in this instance, only one party has done that, and it was the ECB funnily enough.

KP's youtube video saying he wished to play in all formats of the game was hardly damaging...in fact, if anything, he was going back on a measure that previously caused confrontation and was stating he wished to honour his contract.....

I cant see how you would have justification to block such a public measure.

It is more the fact of issuing unauthorised statements, i.e. following no consultation with an employer, rather than what they may contain, that is the issue here.

I doubt any court would find that Pietersen had acted within that specific clause of his contract in this instance.

[Kim]

But that isn't hard to understand. There could be many reasons. For me it would be because they had intruded into my personal, private space. Everyone feels the need to have a part of themselves that cannot be touched by others, be it employers, the police, the press. Or we might give access to it guardedly. With SA, the newspapers and the ECB exposing what he felt was personal and private, he doesn't feel the need to justify that part of himself to anyone. This will be very difficult for him to accept.

There could be a lot of other reasons. But it wouldn't necessarily be something you could do, just for show, without sincerity. This is a deeply personal issue.

What is deeply personal about asking somone to sign a bit of paper denying that the content of texts the whole world now know exists are derogatory?

Asking to see the texts night be personal. asking what is in them might be personal. Asking for conformation that they arent derogatory isnt IMO. Im afraid the only reasonabe conclusion I can come to is he wont sign because they are - or could be interpreted as - in fact, derogatory.

[D/L]

...Again with CSA, he never had issues as he never played for SA. was never in contention...

To be fair to Pietersen on this point, it may be the fact he was never in contention that was the issue! He’s a very good cricketer. Why was he never in contention?